Cited by 64Maternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsReproductive Health and ContraceptionAnesthesia and Pain Management

Birth plans—Impact on mode of delivery, obstetrical interventions, and birth experience satisfaction: A prospective cohort study

Afshar, Yalda, Mei, Jenny Y., Gregory, Kimberly D., Kilpatrick, Sarah J., Esakoff, Tania F.·2018·Birth

Abstract

Objective: To examine whether the presence of a birth plan was associated with mode of delivery, obstetrical interventions, and patient satisfaction. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of singleton pregnancies greater than 34 weeks’ gestation powered to evaluate a difference in mode of delivery. Maternal characteristics, antenatal factors, neonatal characteristics, and patient satisfaction measures were compared between groups. Differences between groups were analyzed using chi‐squared for categorical variables, Fisher exact test for dichotomous variables, and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous or ordinal variables. Results: Three hundred women were recruited: 143 (48%) had a birth plan. There was no significant difference in the risk of cesarean delivery for women with a birth plan compared with those without a birth plan (21% vs 16%, adjusted odds ratio [adjOR] 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61‐2.04]). Women with a birth plan were 28% less likely to receive oxytocin (P < .01), 29% less likely to undergo artificial rupture of membranes (P < .01), and 31% less likely to have an epidural (P < .01). There was no difference in the length of labor (P = .12). Women with a birth plan were less satisfied (P < .01) and felt less in control (P < .01) of their birth experience than those without a birth plan. Conclusion: Women with and without a birth plan had similar odds of cesarean delivery. Though they had fewer obstetrical interventions, they were less satisfied with their birth experience, compared with women without birth plans. Further research is needed to understand how to improve childbirth‐related patient satisfaction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/birt.12320

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Afshar, Y., Mei, J. Y., Gregory, K. D., Kilpatrick, S. J., & Esakoff, T. F.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Afshar, Yalda
Venue
Birth
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-11-02
Volume
45
Issue
1
Pages
43-49
ISSN
  • 0730-7659 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-536X
OpenAlex
W2765229025
Cited by
64
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2
FWCI
4.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Birth (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
Keywords
birth plan, mode of delivery, cesarean section, obstetric surgery, oxytocin, amniotomy, epidural analgesia, length of labor, patient satisfaction, childbirth
MeSH terms
Amniotomy, Adolescent, Adult, Cesarean Section, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Labor, Obstetric, Patient Care Planning, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Regression Analysis, Los Angeles, Analgesia, Obstetrical, Patient Satisfaction, Young Adult, Prenatal Education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review